The Monumental Fraud that is ST3

The June 24^th Seattle Times headline article, “Region’s voters are next stop for $54 billion light-rail plan” is really the start of Sound Transit’s attempt to perpetrate a "monumental fraud" on the area’s residents.  What they claim is a response to “public demand for more light-rail sooner” is their way to perpetuate the Prop 1 light rail extensions.  What they called “a gift to our grand children” when Prop 1 was approved in 2008 will increase congestion for cross-lake commuters, have at best a miniscule impact on I-5 congestion, and will require a huge subsidy to cover the shortfall between operating costs and fare box revenue.    ST3 funding not only allows them to proceed with Prop 1, the extensions it funds exacerbates the costs, and does little to reduce congestion.

The fundamental problem with Sound Transit’s Prop 1 extensions along I-5 and I-90 is they are all routed through the “bus tunnel” in Seattle.  A 2004 PSRC study “High Capacity Transit Corridor Assessment “ concluded that the tunnel limited capacity to 8880 riders per hour in each direction.  They based that capacity on their conclusion the tunnel limited light rail to one 4-car train every 4 minutes and that the 74-seat cars can reasonably accommodate 148 riders.  Thus, light rail in Seattle will never be able to emulate BART’s 450,000 daily ridership with its ten-car trains every 4 minutes across the Bay bridge.

The fraud is Sound Transits ST3 emphasis on “when” commuters will get light rail rather than “how much” it will cost them and “what” will they get when they “get it”. Sound Transit claims ST3 will cost the “average” household an additional $400 per year.  However, a Seattle Times April 4 editorial included a former WSDOT secretary estimate that ST3 passage would result in the average Seattle household paying a total of $2800 annually for public transit.  I’ll leave it to others to decide which is more credible. 

Whatever the costs the “benefits” to residents throughout the area will be minimal.  Eastside cross-lake commuters will get absolutely nothing from their “contribution” to ST3 to change the previous post claim that East Link is a “fraud”.   It will increase I-90 Bridge congestion and do nothing to ease the congestion I-90 corridor commuters face in the East Gate area. 

The increased I-90 Bridge congestion and the Sound Transit decision not to include BRT on SR-520 means ST3 will result in thousands of additional commuters forced to pay bridge tolls for their commutes into and out of Seattle.  Sound Transit attempts to appease east side voters with light rail from South Kirkland P&R through Bellevue to Issaquah ignores the need to spend the millions required for added parking for access when it finally begins operation in 2041.     

ST3 “benefits” to Seattle area residents will also be “minimal”.   Only 25% use public transit.  A 4/11 Seattle Times “Flocking to Buses” article reports “one out of five, that’s 78,000 Seattleites — get to our jobs” ride buses.  However, there’s very little indication that ST3 money will be used to increase bus ridership attracting the 189,947 commuters (according to article) who continue to drive alone.  The other ~200,000 residents who don’t commute will also get no benefit.   

ST3 will also do very little to increase the number of transit riders who currently use Central Link to commute. The 2015 Sound Transit year-end ridership report that Central Link’s 36,000 weekday boardings indicates some 18,000 rode light rail for their morning and afternoon commutes along the route between SeaTac and Westlake station.  They will benefit very little from ST3 extensions. 

The 24,000 boardings added since University Link began operation presumably reflect an additional 12,000 morning and afternoon commuters use the extension.  ST3 extensions beyond the Prop 1 extensions to Northgate and Lynnwood to Everett will likely reduce their access to light rail.   The problem is the 8880 rph capacity doesn’t even accommodate the 33,000 commuters who, according to an Oct 2014 Seattle Times report, used buses during the three-hour morning and afternoon commutes into and out of Seattle. Thus light rail access to University Link extensions will be limited by how many I-5 bus riders Sound Transit transfers to light rail. 

Whatever bus routes they terminate at one of the Central Link extension stations will have a miniscule effect on the congestion on the two I-5 HOV lanes.  Sound Transit could use the Northgate and beyond extensions to add transit capacity rather than replace existing bus routes.  However providing access to light rail stations requires they add parking near stations or at existing and new P&R lots with bus routes to stations; neither of which is mentioned in ST3 proposal. 

Once they did so the obvious question would be “why not route the buses directly into Seattle and avoid the billions required for light rail?”  Especially since the operating costs for light rail are nearly twice those for bus service with comparable capacity.

In conclusion the Seattle tunnel prevents Sound Transit’s ST3 from ever significantly reducing congestion along I-5 and I-90 corridors.  Their attempt to persuade voters to allow them to spend much of the $54 billion creating a “spine” to do so meets my definition of a “monumental fraud”.   

The Fraud that is East Link

The dictionary definition for fraud includes the following: “Something said or done to deceive”.   When light rail was proposed on the I-90 Bridge more than 20 years ago I thought it was an attempt to attract eastside support for light rail taxes needed to fund Central Link in Seattle.  Sound Transit’s subsequent actions make it clear they have no qualms about “deceiving” the public to allow them to proceed with East Link 

Sound Transit’s 2008 East Link DEIS was a clear indication of their approach.  They used it to “justify” light rail with claims it was better than the “no-build alternative”.  Their “alternative” added the 4^th lanes to the outer roadways but retained the existing center roadway with both lanes going in peak direction.  The DEIS claimed East Link, with “headways of 9 to 15 minutes” (i.e. between trains),   “would have a peak-hour capacity of up to 18,000 to 24,000 people per hour (pph)” on the I-90 Bridge center roadway  

They knew or should have known that a 2004 PSRC report concluded the Seattle tunnel limited East Link capacity to less than 9000 pph.  They were either incompetent or deceptive when they never considered dividing the center roadway into inbound and outbound BRT lanes in the DEIS; a “no build alternative” with capacity dwarfing that of light rail. 

It’s concern over BRT that “may” have led Sound Transit to delay adding 4^th lanes for HOV traffic on the outer bridge roadways that had been part of any I-90 Bridge improvements since the mid 90’s.  The costs would have been minimal and the added lanes would have eased congestion for commuters from both sides of the lake but particularly “reverse” commuters.   Instead the delay facilitated the deception by preventing Sound Transit from ever having to consider BRT lanes on bridge center roadway  that would’ve effectively ended any chance for cross-lake light rail. 

The DEIS deception also included claims that vehicle and truck travel times on the modified outer I-90 roadways would also improve or remain similar with East Link. They convinced a federal judge in the Freeman action to allow Sound Transit to install light rail tracks on the center roadway claiming studies concluded the modified outer roadways could accommodate all cross-lake vehicles.    Yet the very document they cited, the Sept 2004 FHWA Record of Decision, stipulated the two center roadway lanes were still needed for vehicles. 

The deception continues.   Sound Transit will likely close the center bridge roadway next year without ever demonstrating the outer roadways can accommodate all the vehicles.  Their decision to ask for ST3 funding this year rather than later “may” have been influenced by concern eastside voters encountering increased congestion from bridge closure would be less likely to approve funding in 2017   (Many of those I talk to are still unaware of the closure.)  

They likely delayed their planned March South Bellevue P&R closure knowing transit commuters unable to find parking at the remaining P&R lots would also be less “supportive”.   That’s also a “possible” reason they’ve delayed until 2017 all the “high impact” construction along the route into Bellevue that will disrupt all those who live or commute along 112^th and Bellevue Way.

Again, ST3 approval will guarantee Sound Transit will spend the next 5-6 years disrupting those living or commuting along the route into Bellevue as well as all those using I-90 bridge for their commute into and out of Seattle.  (The only beneficiary will likely be the WSDOT, which will see substantial increases in their SR-520 bridge toll revenue from those avoiding the congestion).

Cross-lake commuters will certainly recognize the East Link “deceit” when it begins operation in 2023.   The Sound Transit video on their East Link Extension website depicts their version of what cross-lake commuting will be like when service begins.  Both inbound and outbound lanes on I-90 Bridge are literally wide open to traffic.  Yet the video narrative describes East Link operation as three or four car trains every 8 to 10 minutes.  Assuming the 74-seat cars can accommodate an average of 150 riders gives a peak capacity of 4500 pph in each direction, a fraction of what’s needed to reduce cross-lake congestion.

Sound Transit initially proposed using East Link to replace all the I-90 bus routes into Seattle. 40,000 of the projected 50,000 riders were bus riders transferring at the South Bellevue and Mercer Island light rail stations.  The fact that it would take nearly 4 ½ hours each morning and afternoon to accommodate the 20,000 commuters presumably led to their dropping plans to transfer transit riders at Mercer Island.  (The still claim 50,000 daily riders by 2030)

As a result, the only access to even this limited capacity for the vast majority of I-90 corridor commuters will be the South Bellevue P&R station.  Those attempting to do so either driving or riding on buses will have to endure the miles of congestion both coming and going along the I-90 corridor.  East Link will also do absolutely nothing to reduce the miles-long congestion in I-90 lanes going to I-405. 

The limited number of buses Sound Transit may chose to route to the P&R rather than into Seattle will also have a miniscule if any affect on I-90 Bridge outer roadway congestion.  Many of those on routes forced to transfer at South Bellevue will likely chose to “drive rather than ride” to avoid the hassle of transferring to and from likely crowded light rail trains.

Sound Transit attempts to garner eastside support for ST 3 to fund East Link are almost laughable.  What initially was a separate Totem Lake to Issaquah light rail system has evolved into a $2.3 Billion for Issaquah to East Gate to Bellevue light rail and $307 million for light rail between South Kirkland and Bellevue. The fact that neither light rail connection will begin operation until 2041 would seem to “diminish” their appeal.   (The "humor" is the fact Sound Transit is attempting to garner Issaquah support by proposing to spend $2.3 billion so residents can ride light rail to Bellevue in 2041 while doing absolutely nothing to reduce the congestion they currently face during the commute along I-90 corridor into Seattle.)

ST3 approval will allow Sound Transit to continue with an East Link light rail system that will devastate the route into Bellevue, increase rather than decrease I-90 Bridge congestion, and do nothing to ease any of the congestion most eastside commuters currently encounter.   The deceit Sound Transit uses to garner support meets my definition of "fraud" rather than mere stupidity.   

Sound Transit CEO Personifies ST3 Problems

The Seattle Times June 13^th B1 page article “Sound Transit CEO: Suburbs should help pay for 2^nd tunnel” personifies Sound Transit’s approach to dealing with the area’s transportation problems.  CEO Rogoff uses the “budget silo” analogy to belittle those who believe the funds they spend to reduce congestion should be used to reduce their congestion. 

He laments the fact “the agency can afford to build train tracks to car-dependant Issaquah and south Kirkland”.   Yet Issaquah doesn’t get light rail until 2041 and its not clear when or where south Kirkland will. He’s apparently unaware the likely reason they’re both “car-dependent” is they have no choice.  The two thousand parking spaces near Issaquah are already 99% in use and bus service consists of only 10-12 buses an hour during peak commute.  Yet very little if any Prop 1 or ST3 funds will be used to increase I-90 corridor parking or bus service that would reduce the “dependency”. 

The parking and bus service for those in south Kirkland is even more limited.  If he were really interested in reducing their “car-dependency” he would propose using ST3 funds for thousands of added parking spaces with BRT routes across SR520 rather than some vague promise for “future studies”.  (Their partnership with WSDOT "may have influenced" this decision since BRT would have slashed SR-520 bridge toll revenues.)

Rogoff wants suburban taxpayers to cover half the $1.7 billion cost for a second downtown Seattle transit tunnel to avoid “trains getting stuck in the Chinatown International District”.   (How exactly do trains get stuck?)  The problem area with light rail in Seattle is not the Chinatown International District, it’s the Seattle tunnel, which the PSRC concluded in a 2004 analysis, limited light rail capacity to 8880 riders per hour per direction (rphpd).  (Presumably  the Capital Hill light rail station design also limits the University Link light rail trains to 4 cars)

It’s a little late to recognize that limitation.  It’s also a little late to ask suburbanites to pay for the blunder.  Particularly since the money eastside residents have already been paying for years for Prop 1 extensions will close the I-90 Bridge center roadway next year, increasing cross-lake congestion for an East Link light rail extension that will do absolutely nothing to ease their current I-90 corridor congestion.  Asking them to pay more for a second tunnel in Seattle is “beyond the pale”.

It’s also not clear where the second tunnel goes.  A Dec. 05, 2015 Times article asked voters whether they would support a second tunnel and set of tracks to Everett.  The Times March 24^th “update” to the December story indicates the second tunnel would also go to Queen Ann Hill.  The June 13^th version is a “second tunnel from Stadium to Westlake Station”.  (It’s not “clear” how the June 13^th route avoids light rail trains getting "stuck" in Chinatown or in current tunnel.)

Wherever it goes, Rogoff’s claim Sound Transit needs an additional $850 million from suburbanites for the second tunnel to prevent the $54 billion, 116-mile network from getting "stuck" personifies their whole approach.  Giving him the money to spend as he wishes seems "ill advised" at least to this suburbanite.  Especially since Sound Transit fails to recognize the need to spend the billions of dollars required to accommodate the vast majority of their future “half-million daily riders” by providing them with bus service from near where they live or from where they can leave their cars.   (Most will have to do so someplace!)

Once they decide to add the parking and connecting bus service the question then becomes whether they route the buses to light rail stations or directly to where commuters want to go.  Sound Transit will need to spend the vast majority of the $54 billion ST3 funding over the next 25 years to provide the required light rail stations and light rail tracks.  The buses could be added as needed to match up with the added parking for a fraction of light rail costs; and they could begin doing so next year. 

They would use existing HOV lanes limited to either buses only (or +3HOV) during peak commute hours to reduce travel time.   Commuter egress and access in Seattle would be facilitated by converting 4^th Ave into an elongated T/C with dedicated drop-off and pick-up locations for each route on both sides.  Bellevue and Overlake T/Cs would be used to reach eastside destinations. 

All of this could be done with existing Prop 1 funding.  Rejecting ST3 is the only way to force Sound Transit to “consider” doing so.

The Stupidity of ST3 (Part 2)

The previous post detailed how ST3 will enable the stupidity of Sound Transit spending billions over the next 7 years on Prop 1 light rail extensions that will have only a miniscule effect on I-5 congestion. This post details why their plans for using ST3 funds to reduce eastside congestion are even dumber.

Eastside commuters along I-90 corridor, like those along I-5, have endured years of congestion that’s only gotten worse since they approved Prop 1 in 2008.  The morning congestion frequently begins near Issaquah with long lines on all the onramps and mile-long lines on the I-90 lane to I-405.   The lines on the onramps and I-405 lane continue through most of the morning.

The evening commutes are even worse with slow traffic up I-90 to East Gate where they’re joined by eastbound commuters from east side of I-405 waiting in long lines on all the roads leading to the single onramp. (The other choice is a two-mile slog along West Lake Sammamish Boulevard to an onramp near Lakemont.)

Later this year hundreds if not thousands of commuters will lose access to transit when Sound Transit closes the South Bellevue P&R.  They’ll likely simply ignore their MOU with Bellevue City Council to provide viable plans to accommodate all those who use the major T/C on the eastside. The result will be all of the remaining P&R lots will be full well before many commuters arrive. 

All cross-lake commuters will feel East Link’s impact in 2017 when they close the I-90 Bridge center roadway.  (I still frequently encounter those who are unaware of the closure.)  They apparently plan to do so without ever demonstrating the 4^th lanes they’ll have added (for HOV) will enable the outer roadways to accommodate all cross-lake vehicles.  (Despite the fact the FHWA concluded in a Sept 2004 ROD that both center roadway lanes would still be needed for vehicles.)  Thus I-90 Bridge commuters will likely encounter the same delays as I-5 commuters currently do on both HOV and GP lanes.    

Mercer Island residents will especially suffer since not only will they lose their Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) access to the center roadway, their access to I-90 Bridge outer roadway will be severely restricted by onramp controls since they are the last with access.   The idea the MI city council was (is?) attempting to negotiate some sort of “loss of mobility” compensation with Sound Transit is unlikely to placate many islanders. 

The real stupidity of ST3 is that it provides most of the $500-600 Million Sound Transit will spend annually over the next 6 years on East Link. When complete, the $3.6 Billion Prop 1 light rail extension will do absolutely nothing to ease the I-90 corridor congestion and very little to reduce the increased bridge outer roadway congestion because of lost center roadway.   (The absurdity of Sound Transit claims for East Link is evident in their website video depicting 3-4 car light rail trains every 8-10 minutes as the answer for cross-lake transit)

The only way to reduce I-90 corridor congestion is to attract more commuters to transit.  Give them the option of leaving their car near where they “live” rather than where they “work”.   Very few currently have that option since the less than 2000 spaces in the two major P&R lots (Issaquah Highlands and Issaquah Transit Center) are already 99% “in use”.   (This lack of commitment to increasing transit ridership is also evident in the fact I rarely see any westbound buses on my frequent early weekday morning drives to Fall City to play "my version of golf". ) Rather than adding thousands of additional parking spaces (and bus routes) Sound Transit uses ST3 funds for light rail between Issaquah and Bellevue (in 2041) without adding the needed parking.   

When East Link begins operation the only access for the vast majority of I-90 corridor commuters will be the South Bellevue Station.  They’ll still have to endure the current morning and afternoon commutes along I-90.   The bus routes Metro and Sound Transit may terminate at the station will be limited by East Link’s 4440 rphpd capacity (half of Central Link 8880 rphpd).   The reduced number of buses on bridge outer roadway will have a miniscule effect on congestion. 

Voter rejection of ST3 is the only way to end this stupidity.  If “forced” to do so Sound Transit, even without ST3 funds, could initiate 2-way BRT on the center roadway once they moved the non-transit HOV traffic to 4^th lanes on outer roadway.  BRT capacity would far exceed any foreseeable cross-lake transit needs.  There would be no need to close the South Bellevue P&R, devastate the route into Bellevue or disrupt downtown Bellevue for four years digging a tunnel.  There would be no need to close the center roadway next year, something they apparently intend to do despite the fact the March East Link extension status reported the bridge design was still only 90% complete.  (Seven years after being identified as a problem by the FHWA and an IRT study funded by the legislature.)  

Prop 1 funds from existing taxes generated on eastside could be used to add the thousands of parking spaces at existing and new P&R lots with express bus routes into Seattle and to Bellevue and Overlake T/Cs.  Again, allowing commuters to leave their cars near where they live would ease congestion throughout the area.  And they could begin doing so next year. 

More on ST3 stupidity later.

The Stupidity of ST3 (Part1)

The real stupidity of ST3 is that it perpetuates Sound Transit’s Prop 1 extensions.  That, despite Sound Transit claims to the contrary, unless they get the additional $1 billion annually beginning in 2017, they will have great “difficulty” convincing those with money to lend or buy bonds to provide the funds needed for the Prop 1 light rail extensions.  Particularly in view of the huge deficits from the shortfall between fare box revenue and operating costs with the added route lengths.  Thus, without ST3, all the Prop 1 extensions will likely need to be “reconsidered”.

Both ST3 and Prop 1 exemplify what happens when the chairman of the Sound Transit Board, Dow Constantine, has the following goal for light rail.

“What we can do is create light rail to take you where you want to go, when you want to go, on time, every time, for work, for play, for school”    

Not only does he refuse to accept the realities of light rail for our area, he appoints other “like-minded” individuals to the board.  As a result the Sound Transit board is either unaware of or doesn’t care that the high cost of light rail extensions can only be justified if they have the capacity and the access needed to attract sufficient riders to significantly reduce congestion.  The Prop 1 extensions fail on both counts. 

The ST approach to congestion between Everett and Seattle exemplifies the problem.  In 2014, I-5 HOV travel times between the two had increased to 75 minutes for the morning and 70 minutes for the afternoon. (Per Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) “Stuck in Traffic: 2015 Report”.)  Peak commute travel times in the GP lanes varied from 70 to 90 minutes.  The delays generally began around 145^th St. NE.

The presumptive goal of light rail would seem to be to reduce both HOV and GP travel times by attracting more riders to transit.  An August 2004 PSRC  “Central Puget Sound Region High Capacity Transit Corridor Assessment” concluded the Seattle tunnel limited light rail capacity to 8880 riders per hour per direction (rphpd); The assumption being one 4-car train every 4 minutes with 148 riders in each of the 74-seat cars.  (Slightly more than half the 16,000 rphpd Sound Transit claims)

An October 2014 Seattle Times article reported 33,000 commuters already rode transit buses between Everett and Seattle during the 3-hour morning and afternoon commutes.  Thus, the Central Link extensions can’t even accommodate current transit riders let along attract more.  Even if they could, the reduced number of buses would have a miniscule effect on HOV travel times.  

Sound Transit apparently recognized the problem when, in a 12/05/15 Seattle Times article, “Would voters dig another tunnel?” they proposed a 2^nd tunnel and set of tracks to Everett as part of ST3.   Even Sound Transit, apparently recognizing the utter stupidity of two sets of light rail tracks to Everett, dropped the idea in their final ST3 proposal. 

If Sound Transit were really intent on increasing I-5 capacity they could have proposed digging the 2^nd tunnel with stations capable of accommodating the 10 or more cars needed to meet transit needs.  They could have terminated Central Link at a UW T/C that would have provided thousands of 520 commuters from both sides of the lake with a combined 520 BRT/University Link commute.  

The UW T/C would have provided cross-lake commuters with Central Link access to twice the capacity of East Link.  Part of the Northgate extensions funds could be used to add the T/C and increase eastside P&R capacity with 520 BRT connections to Seattle with return routes to Bellevue and Overlake T/Cs.

As it is, when the Northgate extension begins operation, rather than increasing the number of transit commuters Sound Transit will likely require those using the Northgate buses or other I-5 bus routes transfer to light rail for the commute into Seattle.  Whatever Northgate riders they have will reduce the capacity for riders further south.  Transit riders currently added by the University Link will likely have difficulty getting access during peak commute once Northgate begins operation. 

The real stupidity is the current I-5 congestion is not due to too many buses.  Thus, the billions spent on Northgate extensions to replace some of the buses will not only reduce access for current University Link riders it will have a miniscule affect on HOV and GP travel times along I-5.

The other option would be to allow the 33,000 morning and afternoon transit commuters to continue riding existing bus routes and use the light rail capacity to attract additional transit riders.   However providing the added riders with access to light rail will require adding thousands of parking spaces either near future light rail stations or more likely at existing or new P&R lots with bus connections to light rail stations.  The fact that ST3 includes no provisions for the hundreds of millions required to do so makes that option “unlikely”.  (Particularly since the added buses could be routed directly into Seattle rather than light rail stations avoiding the need to spend billions on light rail tracks.) 

Spending even more billions extending tracks to Lynnwood and beyond is even more stupid as it will only increase operating costs (~$100 a mile for 4-car trains) and do nothing to increase capacity.  Again whatever riders the extensions add will make it even more difficult for those nearer Seattle to get access. 

Sound Transit refuses to “recognize” they could avoid the Central Link capacity problems and still provide the 8880 rphpd capacity increase by routing an additional 100 buses an hour along I-5.  Light rail funds could be used to add thousands of P&R spaces for access to the buses.  One of the two express lanes could be limited to buses (or +3HOV) during the peak commute hours to reduce transit times. Egress and access in Seattle could be facilitated by converting 4^th Ave into an elongated T/C with dedicated drop off and pick-up locations on both sides of 4^th Ave for each bus route

Assuming each bus costs $1.5 Million and a P&R space $40,000, Sound Transit could, over the next 5 years, add 20,000 P&R spaces (currently around 5000 with access to I-5) and 100 buses for half the cost of the Northgate extension. Allowing 20,000 additional commuters to leave their cars near where they live rather than where they work will do far more to ease congestion than a Central Link light rail extension to Northgate.  Unlike light rail, additional parking and bus routes could be added as needed. 

Rejecting ST3 is the only chance to make it a reality.

(More on ST3 Stupidity later)